National Green Tribunal
Bishnu Prasad Misro S/O Late Kora Prasad ... vs State Of Odisha Through Chief Secretary on 29 June, 2020
Items No. 02-06
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 156/2016/EZ
(M.A. NO. 312/2017/EZ)
With
Original Application No. 157/2016/EZ
(M.A. NO. 313/2017/EZ)
With
Original Application No. 166/2016/EZ
(M.A. NO. 314/2017/EZ & M.A. NO. 315/2017/EZ)
With
Original Application No. 167/2016/EZ
With
Original Application No. 174/2016/EZ
Bishnu Prasad Misro Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Bishnu Prasad Misro Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Sangram Keshari Mohanty Applicant(s)
Versus
1
State of Odisha & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Bishnu Prasad Misro Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
Bishnu Prasad Misro Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 29.06.2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Biranchi Narayan Mahapatra,
Advocate.
For Respondents(s): Mr. S.K. Nayak, AGA for Respondents No.
1,2 & 4 (in Items No. 2 and 3.); for
Respondents No. 1, 3 & 6 (in Items No. 4
to 6)
Mrs. Papiya Banerjee Bihani, Advocate
for Respondent No. 3.
Ms. Debaleena Ganguly, Advocate for
Respondent No. 5 (in Items No. 2 & 3);
for Respondents No. 7 to 15 (in Item No.
5) and for Respondents No. 8, 9, 11 & 14
(in Item No. 6).
Mr. Gora Chand Roy Chowdhury,
Advocate for SEIAA, Odisha.
Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for
Respondent No. 5 (in Items No. 4-6).
Ms. Paushali Banerjee, Advocate for
Respondent No. 8 (in Item No. 4).
ORDER
1. Case taken up by video conference on Vidyo App. 2
2. This Applicant has preferred the case against the Country Liquor production and sale business being run in the Ganjam District of Odisha illegally, causing health hazard to the people of the district. It is stated that due to consumption of spurious liquor, 29 people lost their lives in the district between March-April, 2006. The Applicant contends that the Disaster Management Plan prepared by the Department of Excise, Government of Odisha on 11.02.2016 stipulates clearance from the pollution control Board and inspection of the factory units to ensure pollution control norms being followed by such units before Pollution Clearance Certificate for establishment/Operation of the factory was issued. This requirement has not at all been enforced according to the Applicant. Direction of the Tribunal in various cases including order dated 03.08.2016 in O.A. No. 98/2015/EZ and order dated 02.08.2016 in O.A. No. 124/2015/EZ have also been alleged to have been violated.
3. The Applicant thus prays inter alia for directions to close the Country Liquor manufacturing unit of the Respondent No. 5 who is alleged to be running such unit illegally and, 3 for fixation by the State mandatory criteria to be followed by the PCB for issuance of licenses for establishment of Country Liquor manufacturing unit.
4. This case has come up before us for the first time after the last date of hearing held on 24.04.2018.
5. Preceding this date, during the course of the proceedings, various directions were passed including inspection of the unit in question by order dated 25.11.2016. The report filed as a consequence thereof states that the Country Liquor manufacturing units were brought under consent management of the Board pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2016 and 31.10.2016 in O.A. No. 124/2016/EZ in the matter of Biranchi Narayan Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors. And, that the Respondent No. 5 had been directed to obtain Consent to Operate from the Board under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21 the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
6. During course of the proceedings of the case, judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No. 12164- 4 12166 of 2016 in the matter of the State of Tamil Nadu v. Balur & Anr. was brought to our notice in which at paragraph 14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to "Model policy/taxation/acts /rules for alcoholic beverage and alcohol" framed by the Union Govt and specifically the para 92(2) of the Model Policy providing as follows:-
"(2) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a retail vend selected within a distance of 100 metres from any religious of educational institution or hospital or outside the inhabited site of village/town/city or any office of the State/Central Government or Local Authorities or within a distance of 220 meters from the middle of the State/National Highways"."
7. The inspection report of the State PCB in respect of the Respondent No. 5 clearly indicated that the policy referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also had not been complied with that led the Tribunal in directing the State PCB to examine this aspect.
8. It would be relevant to note that O.A. No. 157/2016/EZ, O.A. No. 166/2016/EZ, O.A. No. 167/2016/EZ and O.A. No. 174/2016/EZ had also been filed raising the same questions as in the present case which were thus ordered to be taken up together for disposal vide order dated 07.07.2017. On the same date, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent units in these cases that the 5 applications filed by them for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) before the SEIAA, Odisha had not been disposed off and were still pending. SEIAA, Odisha was thus impleaded as a Respondent and notices issued calling upon the Authority to respond. On the same day, affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) in O.As No. 166/2016/EZ and 167/2016/EZ was also taken on record. Vide order dated 02.08.2017 direction was issued upon the SEIAA, Odisha to consider and dispose off the applications for EC submitted by the units expeditiously and upon the CGWB to pass necessary orders for grant of NOC if units had filed applications for the purpose. 28 Country Liquor manufacturing units had been identified all together which were involved in this batch of cases and as per report taken upon on 05.12.2017, it was stated by the State PCB that except for one, rest of the such units were still in operation despite closure notices. Thus, directions were issued upon the State PCB, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the non-compliant units.
6
9. Vide order dated 24.04.2018, the Tribunal had expressed disappointment on the pace at which actions were being taken by the various authorities including the State Government and the State PCB. Cost of ₹5 lakhs was thus imposed upon the State PCB, the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the SEIAA, Odisha, individually and compliance reports directed to be filed before the next date.
10. Today, when the case has come up for the first time after a gap of more than 2½ years, we have noted an affidavit having been filed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Ganjam District on 09.08.2018. The affidavit is quite elaborate and sets out various events that transpired after order dated 24.04.2017 passed in O.A. No. 19/2017/EZ, order dated 22.05.2017 passed in O.A. No. 02/2017/EZ and 19/2017/EZ and, in pursuance to such directions action had been taken for inventorization of the illegal liquor units to ensure that the licensees of the Country Liquor manufacturing units (liquor out still shops/units) did not operate without complying with the mandatory provisions of the law. It is stated that the case had been taken before the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7 11575/2017 and other similar writ petitions in which order of stay was passed against the Tribunal's directions dated 12.05.2017 and 24.04.2017 in O.A. No. 19/2017/EZ. However, the writ petitions appear to have been disposed off finally vide order dated 09.08.2017 granting opportunity to the Applicants to appear before the State PCB as prayed for by them and, upon the State PCB, to take decision on the application for Consent to Operate as well as upon the SEIAA, Odisha on the question of EC within a period of one month.
11. The proceedings were thus continued by the State PCB as well as by the Collector from the stage when it had remained at a standstill due to the intervention of the Hon'ble High Court. The further proceedings that followed thereafter indicates that steps were then taken culminating in the position as set out in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit of the District Magistrate which are reproduced below for convenience:
"22. That, it is humbly submitted on the basis of the above decision out of total 74 O.S. manufacturing units of Ganjam District, 48 units have already obtained consent to operate pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and 3 units are operating by virtue of the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, one unit is closed since 01.04.2018 and the rest 22 units have been closed by virtue of the order dated 26.07.2018 of the deponent.8
23. That, it is humbly submitted that in the present Original Application, out of 2 units, 1 unit have obtained consent to operate in the meantime, 1 unit is closed by virtue of the closure order dated 26.07.2018."
12. The District Magistrate states that all sincere exercises were undertaken by him to comply with the orders of the Tribunal and efforts to close-down the erring units were made but the events alluded to earlier that contributed to the delay could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal resulting in the order dated 24.04.2018 imposing penalty of ₹5 Lakhs.
13. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances set out in the Original Applications and the various affidavits as well as the one filed by the District Magistrate on 09.08.2018. We find that substantial actions have already been taken as revealed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the affidavit of the Collector & District Magistrate, leaving no further questions to be considered by the Tribunal in respect of the core issues raised by the Applicants.
14. Although adjournment has been sought for on behalf of the State PCB, we do not deem it necessary to adjourn the case any further.
9
15. The Applications thus stand disposed off along with all connected M.As with no order as to costs.
S.P. Wangdi, JM Dr. Satyawan Singh Garbyal, EM 29th June, 2020 O.A. No. 156/216/EZ and connected matters avt 10